credit: NASA / click on the image to see a larger version in the same browser window
I spent the whole of Wednesday 23 July in NASA Ares project offices' presentations and have a wealth of information to write about these rocket's ongoing development
credit: NASA
I am on vacation today and tomorrow and will write more about the new information on NASA's Constellation programme next week
on July 24, 2008 10:20 PM | Reply
.
the current Ares-5 design is clearly (to everybody... now...) underpowered for the job but the faster, safer, simpler, cheaper and smarter solution of the problem is NOT to add a 6th RS-68 and two 5.5/6 segments SRB monster!
the simplest solution is to design something like the Ares 5+ (or Ares_33) as explained in this article:
http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/032ares5srb3.html
of course, if NASA did not want to just land a new collection of flags on the Moon, a BIG rocket is absolutely necessary (for BIG cargo missions) while the (so called) "Direct" is only a dwarf-rocket for this job... and new (strong) evidences (clearly) show that it's not even born before the FAST-SLV concept:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.policy/browse_thread/thread/256e299d48c799ec#
.
on July 26, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply
Amazing NASA has an Ares project office. Wonder if they have any furniture. Looks like they're out of ideas on the Ares V.
on August 2, 2008 1:03 AM | Reply
.
the latest news about the Ares-5 say that NASA is going EXACTLY towards the way I've suggested TWO YEARS ago:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5481
as explained here:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.policy/browse_thread/thread/4bee95b668028293
.
on October 16, 2008 4:54 AM | Reply
Latest: now NASA is dragging out the mothballed Apollo spacecraft for pointers on heat-shield design for Orion! When one considers that in order to have the Space Shuttle built, NASA made the idiotic decision to have all the design & construction documentation, tooling and all non-mothballed hardware for Apollo/Saturn demolished, so there would be NO possibility of that "OLD STUFF" being re-used on further space endeavors, one realises these people are no longer serious about their jobs.
Except in terms of continuity of employment that is: particularly with respect to upper management. If these people had been running the show in 1958-69, we'd STILL be waiting for a moon landing.
One get's the impression that it won't be long before NASA suddenly decides it really needs the SSME because the RS-68 - which THEY didn't want in the first place for what now appears to be sound reasoning - gets ditched for insurmountable technical reasons. It amazes me that all these simulations which should have been done in the Conceptual & preliminary design phases, are being done at this late stage. I should think they're REALLY sorry they dumped the RS-83 LOX/LH2 & RS-84 LOX/RP-1 engine designs which would have given them a "Saturn 8" launcher perfectly capable of doing what ARES 1 & V can only manage with a double launch and EOR/LOR rendezvous combined. If it weren't for the Russians and MIR 2, there'd be no Space Station for the Shuttle to go to! I'm really beginning to despair at the dog's dinners NASA seems to make of anything connected with manned spaceflight since the Challenger disaster. Thank the Lord for JPL and company say I.